Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-01-21
them as payment untll tneIr genuinencss shalt

| Of license taxes under any circumstances and
| 10 receive nothing but money That court had
rcIoatedly held that such license assessments
wore taxes for revenue. Brown rs Maryland,
l2WhCat, 4l9; Ward -. Maryland, ~ Wall,
as; Wellon rs Missouri. 9i United States, H5.
THE COTTON CONTRACT.
Both that court and this court had held that by
the terms q the act Of March %, 1871, the cou-
pons Of Virginia were mace receivable for all
taxes debts, dues, and demands due the state.
end that iy the surrender Of their old bonds
aud the acceptance Of two thirds OF their
amount IN new bonds, with coupons annexed
wherein was expressed such tax-receiyability,
constituted between the creditors Of the
state contract that was irrepoalablc
without the consent Of both parties AntOni
rs. Wright. - Graft, S}3; Hartman ~. Green
how. 1G2 L. y. Gs2 In tie case last named the
Fedefpl court held that "the right of the cOu-
pon-hOlder IL 20 have his coupon received for
taxes whom OfieTed,' and that any act Of the
state which forblds the receipt Of these cOu-
pOns for taxes IA q violation Of the contract
and void as against the cOupOn-holder"
The conclusion, then, was irresistible that an
act which compelled tho Treasurer under all
circumstances 10 refuse 10 receive coupons
when offered In payment Of taxes, whether d.
ret or I'm the form Of license assessments, I'M
pairs the obligation Of the coupon contract, and
Is unconstitutional and void. But the
act Of March 4, iStG, here under con-
sideratOn. Il wholly different il does not
GTLid The Treasurer 10 receive tho coupons
10 Withhold the certificate required az
preliminary 10 the license until the papers pur-
UOrtinC 10 be tnN-TeCeivahle coupons Of the
Stnio shall he verified aud Identified according
20 the act Of January II, 1882 ltdoe- not gio-
late the obligation Of the coupon contract: on
the contrary. on its very face il preserves that
obligation, which i8 20 receive coupons (genuinf
cCUpOns) In payment o. I'll taxes, and for it,
object the act refers 70 the preamble Of the at
Of January If. iS2 IN IA I. the net
Ia Of n
said act Of Iiih January, 1882, 20 license
assessments, 10 which, In spirit, IL was already
applicable. The statement IN the preamble OF
that act must be considered ~ true. Antoui rs
GrcenhCw. l07 L. =, O5. Tint act contained
precisely the same feaurCs-tO wit: The pay
mCnt Of The taxes in money in advance and the
fling Of tho coupons for yeriflcation, and the
sending Of these coupons TO the local court 20
have the fact Of thcir cenuineue.s aud rcreiya-
hility determined, subject 10 an appeal 10 the
Circuit Court and 20 this Court. These features
We're closely s,Tutinizcd and discussed and
passed on by ;he supreme Court Of the United
States in Ant0ni rs. GrccnhOw, sHDrd, when the
lsleaTned Chief Justice declares that those
features did not iny6lidate the said act
II Is true that IL has been said that that de-
Cision wa only 10 the erect that the substitu-
ton Of the remedy prescribed 10y the act o.
January II, lSS9 for the remedy by mandamus
was not Unconstitutional. The chief Justice
did say: "1he question we are now 10 cOnsidefis
not whether, If tie cCWI0H tcHd'Tcd is IN Jdct
genuine and such o0If under NE contract r. Be
reccired and the tender Is kept good. the Trea-
surer can proceed 10 collect the tax by distraint
or such other process as the law allows without
making himself personally responsible for any
trcspass he may commit but whether the act
Of 1872 violates any implied obligation Of the
State i'm respect 10 the remedies that
may De employed for the enforcement
Of It's contract If the collector refuses 10 take the
coupons lie then proceeds 20 say: 1T cannot
be denied that. as general rule, laws applica-
a. tHs hot
aud place Of making contract enter into and
form part Cf he contract Itself. aud that this
embraces alike those laws which affect it, valid
ity. construction. discharge. ard enforcement
walker rs. Whitehead, lG Wall. 3li) But 70 h
equally well settled that changes in the
f0ms uf action and modes Of proceed
ing do not amount 10 an impairment
of The obligation Of contract II an
adequate and enlcacious remedy is left He
then closely investigates the terms OF the fourth
section of the act Of January q. 1852 cOnsid-
Crs carefully The objections presented tO li9
material features. which have been mentioned T;
declares those features do rot invalldaie tina
section and decides that that section does no
mUair the obligation of any contract which the
State has made with the holders Of its interest
coupons. Now. all this plainly holds good a.
respects the act Of March I, lSS6, which ~ vir-
tually the same In terms and object a. the act
then and there passed upon.
But the above quotation from the opinion OF
the Chief Justice has been made not merely 10
show that the material features of that act were
discussed and declared uncxceptionable, but
also 10 call emphatic attention 20 two iWpor-
tant points made there In reference 10 the
statute then before the court The first is that
the chief Justice qualified In express terms the
duty Of the Treasurer 20 receive coupons In the
payment Of taxes by the condition that those
COUPONS which are rendered him shall be
0fHp,He end rcceirdb'c for those taxes; and,
second. that the act required the pay
nent i'm advance in money Tor the pay
ment whereof the coupons are rendered
rs a condition precedent 10 their cancellation
ard the filing Of the coupons and sending of
tlcm 10 the local courts TO have the iact OF their
gcnuincncss and receiVability determined
4 lis clearly cyinces that in the mind Of tha'
court he duty imposed by the statute on the
Treasurer 20 withhold the performance Of the
Gct be was called on 10 per0rin-t0 VII thc
cancellation Of the taxes In the one case AMI
the issuance Of the certificate for the license In
the othcr-was the leading feature In the sta
tutc and was held in the case then before that
court not 10 bc Objectionable, and not 10 inyah-
cate the statute.
If tlat be true Of the act Of January H. lN52
il is equally true Of the act oi March :, 1876
The condition. then, upon which the Court Ia
Royals case held that "if aSiaie officer acting
in obedience 10 statute OF the state which ~
40 c0Hfirt rih the Constitution Ol the nlted
states rCniscS 20 issue IA license to person VINO
has duly rendered the amount required by law
the uersOn rendering need not take legal steps
10 compel the issuance Of The license before
doing business" and " may prosecute his busi-
ness without a license and cannot be punished
for 20 DOING does not exist in the case here
before this Court. and that decision has no bear
ing On and cannot govern IT,
THE ACT IN QUESTION.
The act Of March 4. lsS6 does not forbid the
Treasurer 10 receive genuine coupons IN pay
mcnt Of license taxes. lt only provides thni
he shall resort 10 a certain mode 10 determine
their genuineness and recciyability, which
mode requires no unreasonable delay, and
pending which the applicant can M once OBJ
tain his license by the payment in advance in
money Of the assessment required 10y law,
which money. if the coupons are determined 10
bc genuine and receivable, will DE refunded 10
him out Of the State Treasury. 10 i stated in
the preamble (and the statement must be taken
as true) that there are in existence bonds
which are spurious, stolen, or forged,
similiuGe Of genuine coupons receivable
for all taxes. debts, aud demands due the
Commonwealth and the coupons from such
spurious. stolen, or forged bonds are received
in payment Of taxes, debts, and demands ana
genuine coupons from genuine bonds, after
having been received in payment Of taxes.
debts, aud demands are fraudulenty reaSued
If these facts are true, as in the absence even
Of all other evidence they would be presumed
TO lie. il was the duty of the Legislature, Ia
order 20 protect the rights Of the state dni
Of Ter creditors, 10 enact a law requiring her
officers 10 cause papers pnrportng 10 De
coupons cut from the bonus OF lhe Slitc ~ 10
Identified and verified az genuine and receiva-
bic before taking them In the discharge Of her
revenue assessments. The humblest citizen II
entitled 20 he assured Of the genuineness oil
that which Is rendered him in satisfaction Of
what Is due him. aud surely this privilege can
not be denied 10 the State, In whose just pro
lection is involved the safety and well being OF
every citizen.
TIE LICENSE LAW.
The law Of Virginia requires the Obtainment
OF a license before any persOn can sell WITHIN
her limits goods, wares, aud Inerchandise by
sample. card, description, or other representa-
ton. These are articles which the state has an
undoubted right TO tax, either directly or indi-
rectly, by imposing license assessment on the
business Of selling them. The mode for the
obtainment Of such license Il plainly pre-
sc1ibed by her laws. The conditions upon
which IL l. granted are reasonable and JUST
and demanded by the policy OF the
state Any one selling goods In this Sta'e
by sample. &C. in defiance Of her laws WIN
out the required license IS guilty OF misde-
mcanor and punishable as provided In her
statutes Therefore, the judgment OF the
defendant 10 the replication of the Common
wealth 10 the defendants plea to the indictment
against him Is erroneous and must be reversed
and the case must be remanded 10 the saiI
Hastings Court, 10 be there further prOceeied
with in conformity with the law and the views
herein expressed.
Attorney General Ayers and Mr.. W.
r.. Meredith appeared for the Common
wealh and Mr.. George Bryan for Mr..
Jones.
New Invention Put Forth from "a